Parcel Tax for San Francisco Unified School District

Shall the City collect an annual tax of $298 per parcel for investment in education, subject to certain exemptions including those for senior citizens?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: The San Francisco Unified School District educates approximately 57,000 students and employs approximately 6,200 teachers and para-educators. The School District receives funding from state and federal governments and the City of San Francisco.

The Proposal: Proposition G would authorize the City to collect an annual parcel tax of $298 per parcel of taxable property in the City beginning July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2038, adjusted annually for inflation.

Proposition G would require the City to transfer all parcel tax revenue to the School District. The School District could use the funds only for the following purposes:

• To increase the salaries and benefits of teachers and para-educators;

• To increase staffing and funding at high-needs schools and at community schools;

• To increase the salaries and/or benefits of other School District employees;

• To provide additional professional development to teachers and para-educators;

• To invest in technology, including digital learning; and

• To fund charter schools in the City.

Proposition G would provide two exemptions from the tax:

• The measure would exempt senior citizens who turn 65 years of age before July 1 of the tax year, own an interest in the property being taxed, and use the property as their principal residence.

• The measure would generally exempt property designated as a parking space, if the parking space and residential parcel are owned by the same persons.

Proposition G would require the City Controller to prepare an annual report on how these funds are spent. It would also require an independent committee to oversee how the School District is spending these funds.

A “YES” Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to authorize the City to collect an annual tax of $298 per parcel for investment in education, subject to certain exemptions including those for senior citizens.

A “NO” Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not approve this parcel tax.

Controller’s Statement on “G”

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition G:

Should the proposed measure be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would generate new tax revenues of approximately $50 million annually at current rates. The measure sets a tax of $298 per parcel annually on real property in San Francisco. The tax and revenue amounts would increase over time as the per parcel rate is adjusted for inflation.

The funds generated would be dedicated to teacher salaries and training and other purposes of the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) as specified in the measure. The measure specifies that the parcel tax will be collected beginning July 1, 2018 for a period of 20 years to July 1, 2038.

In June of 2008, San Francisco voters approved a similar tax to benefit SFUSD at the rate of $198 per parcel for a period of 20 years, expiring in July 2028. In June of 2010, San Francisco voters approved a school facilities special tax for SFUSD at the rate of $32.20 per parcel for a period of 20 years, expiring in July 2030.

The proposed measure has some administrative procedures that differ from the City’s existing parcel taxes for SFUSD which may result in a marginally increased cost of tax administration.

How “G” Got on the Ballot

On February 7, 2018, the Department of Elections certified that the initiative petition calling for Proposition G to be placed on the ballot had a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

9,485 signatures were required to place an initiative ordinance on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of the total number of people who voted for Mayor in 2015. A random check of the signatures submitted by the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the February 5, 2018, submission deadline showed that the total number of valid signatures was greater than the number required.

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained in Words you need to know >.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition G

YES on Proposition G will allow San Francisco to attract and retain quality teachers.

San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. Skyrocketing rents and the Bay Area’s affordability crisis have made it difficult for our teachers to make ends meet. Proposition G will give our teachers the fair wage they deserve. It will provide much-needed relief to our educators in the midst of a daunting affordability crisis and help them afford to live here.

We all agree that great teachers are key to student success. Proposition G will ensure our schools have the financial resources needed to support and retain our high-quality teachers.

Over the past year, San Francisco Unified School District has hired over 500 teachers, but our schools still have a teacher shortage. With Prop G , our school district will be able to attract new, high-quality teachers to fill the shortage growing in our City.

The measure will strengthen computer science, technology, and digital learning so our students are ready to excel in college and compete in the 21st century global economy.

All of the funds established by Prop G will be spent right here in San Francisco to improve teacher pay and none of the funds can be taken by the state or federal government. A citizens’ oversight committee and annual audits will ensure that all funds are spent as promised.

Join parents, teachers, business and technology industry leaders, and labor by voting YES on G so that our children can have the quality teachers they deserve to thrive and succeed.

Mayor Mark Farrell

Board of Supervisors President London Breed

Supervisor Jane Kim

Former Senator Mark Leno

Former Supervisor Angela Alioto

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition G

The proponents of Proposition G make it sound like we’re against motherhood and apple pie. They tell us, again without argument, that we need a new 20-year parcel tax to give San Francisco’s public school teachers an extra 2% pay raise so that they can afford to live in the City.

They don’t tell us that, because of the higher cost of living here, our public school teachers are already paid more than any in the whole Bay area. Or that they are paid significantly more than teachers in our private and religious schools, who never threaten to go on strike. Or that parents often sacrifice for private school or home schooling alternatives, so that only about 59% of our school age children are educated in public schools.

Nor are they troubled by the inequities of a parcel tax. Only about a third of San Franciscans pay it. It’s a perfectly regressive flat sum tax. Parcel size and value are irrelevant.

But teachers like parcel tax measures because they pass easily whenever they have “teacher” or “education” in the title. So why not ask for a new 20- year parcel tax, even when taxpayers still have a decade of payments to go on the last such parcel tax?

Fight teacher union manipulation. VOTE NO ON G.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

www.LPSF.org

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition G

We all know the two things that government does best: TAX and SPEND. Prop G does both brilliantly. It imposes a parcel tax of $298 per year on all city land parcels for the next 20 years to allow the San Francisco Unified School District to increase salaries and to fund specified school programs. These include virtue-signaling programs for troubled students, i.e. “serving students including those who have been expelled from other schools or are on probation or parole.”

So what’s not to like? Parcel taxes avoid the Prop 13 restrictions that apply to traditional property taxes. It’s only an inflation-adjusted $298 ($299.98 might have been overreach). To ease any hardship, there’s an exemption for senior citizens’ homes and for parking space parcels adjacent to exempt homes.

And education tax measures are always an easy sell. Indeed, this measure landed on the ballot as result of a teachers’ union salary negotiation that resulted in solid salary increases over 3 years and agreement to seek voter approval for a parcel tax for a possible extra 2%. While it would be nice if teachers (and the middle class generally) could more easily afford city housing, voter referendums are not the best way to resolve contractual issues like teacher pay for advanced placement course preparation.

The problem is that parcel taxes are the most regressive form of taxation known. And small taxes can add up. Currently, San Franciscans are still paying multi-year parcel taxes for City College and for Bay clean water and habitat restoration. So cumulative fixed-sum parcel taxes on modest parcels in San Francisco today can exceed the 1%-of-value property tax that sparked Prop 13’s taxpayer revolt in 1978.

Avoid excessive and stealth taxation. Vote NO on G.

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

www.LPSF.org

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition G

Proposition G will help attract and retain great teachers, so our children can succeed.

Funds generated by Prop G will be used directly to raise San Francisco teachers’ pay. Prop G brings local control and stability to school funding. None of the funds generated by Prop G can be taken by the state or federal government. Mandatory, independent audits will ensure that all the funds generated by Prop G will be spent properly.

San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the country and our dedicated teachers, who work tirelessly to support our kids, are struggling to make ends meet. Our teachers deserve a raise that will help our schools attract and retain quality educators and reduce the District’s teacher shortage.

Vote YES on Prop G to help San Francisco students thrive.

Prop G will make sure every kid in every school across San Francisco has access to the highest quality teachers and the best educational programs regardless of the neighborhood they live in. This measure will empower our teachers by enhancing training programs, resources, and classroom support.

Learn more at YesToSFTeachers.com.

San Francisco’s children need great teachers to help prepare them for college and opportunities in the 21st century global economy. Funds generated by Prop G will go to raising teachers’ salaries, so our educators can afford to stay and serve San Francisco students and their families.

Strengthen our City by supporting our teachers and kids. Vote YES on Proposition G.

Hydra Mendoza-McDonnell, Board of Education President

Kari Gray, Second District PTA President

Lita Blanc, United Educators of San Francisco President

Susan Solomon, United Educators of San Francisco Vice-President

Myong Leigh, San Francisco Unified School District Deputy Superintendent*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition G

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

Great teachers are the key to world-class schools. That is why we urge voters to vote Yes on Proposition G. We need to recruit high-quality teachers to have the best academic programs in reading, writing, math and science. Proposition G will provide the financial resources needed to attract, support, and retain the best teachers. Vote Yes on G.

Assemblymember Phil Ting

Assemblymember David Chiu

Supervisor Katy Tang

Assessor Recorder Carmen Chu

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with Support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

As parents, we understand that great teachers are at the center of student success. Proposition G will make sure our kids get the best education by giving schools the resources to attract and retain high-quality teachers in every classroom. Vote yes on G.

Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco

Parent PAC

San Francisco PTA

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committe of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

Vote Yes on G. The Democratic Party will always stand with teachers. Education is the key to success. Proposition G will ensure every child has access to the highest quality teachers. Join the San Francisco Democratic Party in supporting Yes on G.

David Campos, San Francisco Democratic Party Chair

Mary Jung, Former San Francisco Democratic Party Chair

Keith Baraka, Member, San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee

Leah LaCroix, Member, San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee

Sophie Maxwell, Member, San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with Support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committe of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

Women leaders across San Francisco are proud to stand with teachers and vote Yes on G. It’s time to start paying teachers the fair wage they need to afford living in San Francisco.

San Francisco Women’s Political Committee

Supervisor Sandy Fewer

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with support from United Educators - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

History has shown that when communities invest in good, family-supporting jobs, everyone benefits. Let’s do what’s right by hardworking teachers. Vote yes on G.

San Francisco Labor Council

Tim Paulson, San Francisco Labor Council Executive Director

Conny Ford, San Francisco Labor Council Vice President

Mike Theriault, Secretary-Treasurer, Sam Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

Latino leaders support Prop G. Children in our communities deserve the very best academic programs, especially those who need additional support with bilingual education and other areas. Vote yes on G.

John Avalos , Former San Francisco Supervisor

Roberto Hernandez, Our Mission No Eviction

Lito Sandoval, Community Activist

Petra De Jesus, Member, San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with Support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

Everyone agrees a child’s chances of getting a good teacher should not depend on their zip code. Prop G will ensure all children in all schools have access to the best teachers and best academic programs, regardless of where they live. Join the African- American community in voting Yes on G.

Shamann Walton, San Francisco School Board Commissioner

Stevon Cook, San Francisco School Board Vice President

Dr. Kim-Shree Maufas, Former San Francisco School Board Commissioner

D'Vonte Graham, President, San Francisco Black Young Democrats

Leah LaCroix, Member, SF Democratic Party Central Committee

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

San Francisco's former mayors urge you to vote Yes on G. All San Francisco Children, regardless of need, deserve the best teachers. Proposition G will help

I urge you to vote Yes on G. All San Francisco Children, regardless of need, deserve the best teachers. Proposition G will help retain and support the high-quality teachers that make San Francisco a champion of opportunity for all . Vote Yes on G.

Former Mayor Art Agnos

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

Vote Yes on G! We can’t afford to lose hundreds of passionate teachers every year because of the affordability crisis. Enough is enough. Proposition G will ensure schools can train and retain our strongest teachers while also attracting the the very best to our classrooms. Yes on G!

Susan Kitchell, Nurse

Megan Caluza, Teacher

Ken Tray, Retired Teacher

Larry Nicholson, Teacher

Carolyn Samoa, Para-Educator

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition G

SF LGBTQ Leaders Stand with Teachers!

San Francisco educators have pioneered the way we support LGBTQ youth and help them succeed in life. We are proud to support SF educators. Vote Yes on G.

Gina Simi, Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club Co-Chair

State Senator Scott Weiner

Supervisor Jeff Sheehy

Rafael Mandelman, Member, SF Community College Board of Trustee

Alex Randolph, Member, SF Community College Board Trustee

Honey Mahogany, Harvey Milk Democratic Club Co-President

Debra Walker

Andrea Shorter

Cleve Jones

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Living Wage for Educators, with Support from United Educators of San Francisco - Yes on G.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. United Educators of San Francisco Committee of Political Education, 2. Phil Halperin, 3. John Scully.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition G

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition G

Since 1993, the SFUSD is the only district in California with its own $53M highly-regressive sales tax. It already has $40M from TWO parcel taxes, $73M from 2004 Prop H, $11M from the 2016 state income tax increase, $6M from ending redevelopment, and $40M from bond override taxes.

To see the documents where the SFUSD incorrectly accounted for its 2011 parcel tax, denied its existence, and took 13 months to release financials, visit www.sfusdwatch.com.

This regressive tax will not dent a bloated $1,057,115,751 budget. Enough is Enough.

Thomas J. Busse

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Thomas J. Busse.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Legal Text

BE IT ORDAINED by the People of the City and County of San Francisco as follows:

SECTION 1. Title.

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “Living Wage for Educators Act of 2018.”

SECTION 2. Living Wage for Educators Act of 2018.

The Business and Tax Regulations Code is hereby amended by adding Article 16, consisting of Sections 1601 through 1609, to read as follows:

Article 16. Living Wage for Educators Parcel Tax

Section 1601. Title.

This Article shall be known and may be cited as “Living Wage for Educators Act of 2018” (hereinafter the “Act”).

Section 1602. Necessity and Authority.

A. The People of the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter “the City”) have determined that:

1. A parcel tax is necessary to attract and retain quality teachers and staff within the San Francisco Unified School District (hereinafter the “School District”).

2. The Bay Area is one of the most expensive places to live in the country. Skyrocketing rents and the Bay Area’s affordability crisis have made it difficult for San Francisco teachers to make ends meet and nearly impossible for them to live in the City.

3. Great teachers are at the center of student achievement. San Francisco schools need the resources to employ great teachers, so every student has the opportunity to thrive.

4. In recent years, the School District has recently hired more than 500 teachers annually, but still has a teacher shortage. This measure will allow the School District to not only train and retain the best teachers but also recruit new high-quality teachers.

5. California schools have suffered from consistent underfunding. The state ranks 42nd in per-pupil spending across the nation. San Francisco can do something about that by supporting local programs that will prepare the City’s students for college and 21st century jobs. All of the revenue from this measure will be spent right here in San Francisco public schools and cannot be taken away by the State.

B. This Article and the special tax authorized herein are adopted pursuant to Section 1.101 and other applicable provisions of the Charter, and Article XI sections 5 and 6 of the California Constitution.

Section 1603. Imposition.

A. A special non-ad valorem parcel tax (hereinafter the “Parcel Tax”) is hereby established and shall be levied annually on the owner of each parcel of taxable real property within the City, unless the owner is by law exempt from taxation, in which case, the Parcel Tax shall be assessed to the holder of the possessory interest in such parcel, unless such holder is also by law exempt from taxation. The Parcel Tax is an excise tax on the use of property within the City.

B. The Parcel Tax shall hereby be established and levied each year, commencing July 1, 2018, on each parcel of taxable real property, improved or unimproved, within the boundaries of the City at the rate of two hundred and ninety-eight dollars ($298.00) per year per parcel, and adjusting for inflation each year thereafter by the San Francisco All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as reported by the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.

C. For the purposes of this Article, a “parcel of taxable real property” shall be defined as any unit of real property in the City which receives a separate tax bill for ad valorem property taxes from the City’s Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector (hereinafter the “Tax Collector”).

D. The collection of the Parcel Tax shall commence July 1, 2018 and expire June 30, 2038.

E. All property that the Tax Collector has determined to be otherwise exempt from property taxes, or on which no ad valorem property taxes have been levied, in any year shall also be exempt from the Parcel Tax in such year. The Tax Collector’s determination of exemption or relief for any reason of any parcel from taxation, other than the Senior Citizen Exemption or Unit Owner Parking Space Exemption, shall be final on the taxpayer for purposes of the Act. Taxpayers desiring to challenge the Tax Collector’s determination should do so under the procedures established by the Tax Collector’s Office, applicable provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code or other applicable law. Taxpayers seeking any refund of taxes paid pursuant to the Act shall follow the procedures applicable to tax refunds pursuant to the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

F. An optional exemption (heretofore the “Senior Citizen Exemption”) from the Parcel Tax will be made available annually to each individual in the City who attains 65 years of age prior to July 1 of the tax year, and who owns a beneficial interest in the parcel, and who uses that parcel as his or her principal place of residence, and who applies to the City on or before July 1 of each tax year, or during the first year of the tax at a date to be determined by the Tax Collector. Any application for such exemption must be submitted to the Tax Collector, pursuant to any rules and regulations of the Tax Collector, and must be renewed annually.

G. An optional exemption (heretofore the “Unit Owner Parking Space Exemption”) from the Parcel Tax will be made available annually to each owner of a parcel of taxable real property which (1) is classified as a “parking space” by the City and County of San Francisco’s Assessor-Recorder’s Office, (2) is contiguous to an exempt residential parcel, and (3) includes shared ownership between both the parking space parcel and exempt residential parcel. Parcels of taxable real property which are considered parking lots or other commercial spaces shall not be exempted under this section. Any application for such exemption must be submitted to the Tax Collector, pursuant to any rules and regulations of the Tax Collector, and must be renewed annually.

Section 1604. Levy, Collection and Purpose.

A. The proceeds of the Parcel Tax shall be deposited into a special fund, maintained by the City, which proceeds, together with any interest and any penalties thereon, collected each fiscal year shall be used solely for the purposes set forth in this section. The proceeds from the Parcel Tax shall be expended only for these purposes.

B. The City shall transfer all money deposited into the special fund to the School District for the purposes set forth in this section. The School District shall use these proceeds only for these purposes.

C. The proceeds collected by the levy of the Parcel Tax shall be used to:

1. Raise the salary of teachers so the School District can compete with other school districts in recruiting and retaining qualified and prepared teachers to support student achievement;

2. Raise the salary of paraeducators so the School District can better support individualized learning;

3. Increase staffing and supports at high-needs schools;

4. Increase staffing and program funding at Community Schools;

5. Provide additional professional development to all teachers and paraeducators;

6. Provide more competitive compensation and/or benefits to other School District personnel;

7. Invest in 21st century technology, including providing support for digital teaching and learning tools for students, educators and families;

8. Allocate funds to public charter schools in the City; and

9. Provide oversight to make sure the proceeds from the Parcel Tax are only spent for the purposes approved by voters.

D. The purposes set forth in this section shall constitute the specific purposes of the Act, which are specific and legally binding limitations on how the proceeds of the tax can be spent. The proceeds of the Parcel Tax shall be used only for such purposes and shall not fund any program or project other than those set forth herein.

E. The City shall, with every disbursement made pursuant to this Article, require the District to verify in writing that it will use the funds only for the purposes set forth in this section.

F. The Parcel Tax shall be collected by the Tax Collector at the same time and in the same manner and shall be subject to the same penalties as ad valorem property taxes collected by the Tax Collector.

Section 1605. Controller’s Report.

The City’s Office of the Controller (hereinafter the “Controller”) shall prepare a report on at least an annual basis which shows the amount of funds collected and expended, and the status of any project required or authorized to be funded, by the Parcel Tax. The Controller shall file each report with the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and the oversight committee referenced in this Article.

Section 1606. Supplement to Existing School District Funding.

A. The People of the City and County of San Francisco find and declare that major urban school districts such as San Francisco serve an ethnically and economically diverse student population which requires more resources than currently provided. In adopting this Parcel Tax, the people of San Francisco choose to provide additional City resources to complement, and not supplant, City, State, Federal and other funding for the School District.

B. Consistent with subsection (A), the People of the City and County of San Francisco specifically find that their contributions to and disbursements from the special fund authorized by this Article are discretionary expenditures by the City for the direct benefit of the children of San Francisco, their families, and the community at large. In the event that the State attempts, directly or indirectly, to redistribute these expenditures to other jurisdictions or to offset or reduce State or Federal funding to the School District because of the contributions to and disbursements from the special fund authorized by this Article, the City shall transfer said monies that would otherwise be distributed to the School District each year from the special fund to the City’s Children’s Fund established in Charter section 16.108, or such other fund as the Board of Supervisors may designate, to be spent for purposes which are substantially equivalent to the purposes set forth in this Article.

C. This Parcel Tax is intended to be in addition to and not to replace any other monies provided by the City to the School District, including but not limited to the Public Education Enrichment Fund (hereinafter “PEEF”). This Article does not authorize a reduction in disbursements from the City to PEEF.

Section 1607. Increase in Appropriations Limit.

To the extent that the revenue from the Parcel Tax is in excess of the spending limit for the City, as provided for in applicable provisions of the California Constitution and state law, the approval of the Act by the voters shall constitute approval to increase the City’s spending limit in an amount equal to the revenue derived from the Parcel Tax for the maximum period of time as allowed by law.

Section 1608. Oversight.

The oversight committee created pursuant to Proposition A on the June 2008 San Francisco ballot shall, starting with the Act’s first operative year, submit a report on at least an annual basis to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and Board of Education evaluating whether the proceeds from the Act are being properly expended for the purposes set forth in the Act. If this body is unwilling or unable to perform this function for any reason, then the City shall establish an oversight committee to submit a report on at least an annual basis to the Mayor, Board of Supervisors and Board of Education evaluating whether the proceeds from the Act are being properly expended for the purposes set forth in the Act.

Section 1609. Severability.

If any provision of this Article, or section or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision, section or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, sections and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions, sections and parts of this Article are severable. The voters hereby declare that this Article, and each section, provision and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions, sections or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Effective Date and Operative Date.

This measure shall become effective upon its approval by a simple majority of electors voting on the measure. This measure shall become operative on July 1, 2018.

SECTION 4. Statement of Facts.

The Living Wage for Educators Act of 2018 creates a non-ad valorem parcel tax of $298 on each parcel of taxable real property in the City and County of San Francisco, the proceeds of which are specifically limited and shall be used solely for teacher, paraeducator and School District personnel compensation, increased staffing, support and programing at high-needs schools and Community Schools, professional development, technology, public charter schools, and spending oversight.

SECTION 5. Severability.

If any provision of this measure, or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions and parts of this measure are severable. The voters hereby declare that this measure, and each portion and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. Conflicting Measures.

This measure is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People of the City and County of San Francisco that, in the event this measure and one or more measures relating to a special tax to fund compensation for School District staff shall appear on the same ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. If this measure is approved by a majority of the voters but does not receive a greater number of affirmative votes than any other measure or measures appearing on the same ballot regarding a special tax to fund compensation for School District staff, then this measure shall take effect to the extent not in conflict with said other measure or measures.

SECTION 7. Liberal Construction.

This measure is an exercise of the initiative power of the People of the City and County of San Francisco to implement a special tax to fund the purposes set forth in the Act, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes.

SECTION 8. Municipal Affairs.

The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby declare that providing funding to the San Francisco Unified School District through a parcel tax for the purposes set forth in this measure constitutes a municipal affair. The People hereby further declare their desire for this measure to coexist with any similar tax measures adopted at the city, county or state levels.

SECTION 9. Home Rule.

The authority to pass this measure is derived from San Francisco’s home rule powers outlined in Section 1.101 and other applicable provisions of the Charter, and Article XI sections 5 and 6 of the California Constitution. The People of the City and County of San Francisco declare their intent that this citizen initiative be enacted, and the parcel tax be collected for the entire uninterrupted time period described herein, if this measure is approved by a simple majority of voters pursuant to the California Supreme Court case of California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland (2017) 3 Cal.5th 924. To the extent that the California Constitution or state law is amended, after this measure is passed by voters, to change or create additional voting requirements to implement or to continue to implement this measure, the People of the City and County of San Francisco declare their intent that such amendments should be applied prospectively only and not apply to, or in any way affect, this measure.

SECTION 10. Legal Defense.

The People of the City and County of San Francisco desire that this measure, if approved by the voters and thereafter challenged in court, be defended by the City. The People, by approving this measure, hereby declare that the proponent(s) of this measure have a direct and personal stake in defending this measure from constitutional or statutory challenges to the measure’s validity or implementation. In the event the City fails to defend this measure, or the City fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality, statutory permissibility or implementation of this measure, in whole or in part, in any court of law, the measure’s proponent(s) shall be entitled to assert his, her or their direct personal stake by defending the measure’s validity and implementation in any court of law and shall be empowered by the People through this measure to act as agents of the People. The City shall indemnify the proponent(s) for reasonable expenses and other losses incurred by the proponent(s), as agent(s), in defending the validity and/or implementation of the challenged measure. The rate of indemnification shall be no more than the amount it would cost the City to perform the defense itself.